STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARD RAY PEEL, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-471 / 08-0327
Filed July 22, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LEONARD RAY PEEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Timothy J. Finn,
Judge.
Leonard Peel appeals from his sentence upon conviction for seconddegree robbery.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
REMANDED.
Robert A. Wright, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas W. Andrews, Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and Timothy Meals,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On November 22, 2000, Leonard Peel was charged with second-degree
robbery in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.3 (1999) for a crime
committed on November 12, 2000. On January 19, 2001, a jury found Peel guilty
as charged. The district court set sentencing for March 5, 2001. On February 6,
2001, Peel filed a motion for new trial. On March 2, 2001, the district court
vacated the jury’s verdict and granted Peel’s motion for new trial. On March 8,
2001, the State appealed the district court’s ruling. Peel was released on bond
on June 1, 2001. He apparently returned to his home state of Texas where he
was on parole or probation.
On May 15, 2002, this court reversed the district court’s grant of Peel’s
motion for new trial and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict and
sentencing. Procedendo issued on August 13, 2002. The district court issued an
arrest warrant and set bond on August 15, 2002.
At the time, Peel was in the custody of the state of Texas either serving a
sentence for violation of Texas parole or probation or pending hearing on an
application for revocation of parole or probation. On March 24, 2004, the Story
County Attorney was informed that Peel had been released from custody by
Texas authorities despite the Iowa warrant. Peel failed to appear in Iowa for
sentencing on May 17, 2004. The district court issued another arrest warrant
and re-set bond on May 18, 2004.
About ten months later, Peel was arrested in Texas on new charges and
held in the Dallas County jail. He was sentenced in Texas on May 19, 2005, and
3
was again incarcerated in a Texas prison, apparently a federal facility, subject to
the warrant from Iowa.
Peel was released from prison in Texas and transported to Iowa in
December 2007. At his sentencing on January 28, 2008, Peel asked to receive
credit for the time served pending disposition of his offense, including time he
had been detained in Texas. The district court sentenced Peel and issued a
separate order detailing the credit Peel would get for time served in custody. On
January 31, 2008, the district court denied Peel’s request for credit for the
periods of time Peel was detained in Texas. The court gave Peel credit only for
the days he was incarcerated in Iowa from November 2000 to June 2001 and
again from December 2007 to January 2008.
Peel appeals from the district court’s order denying him credit for
presentence time, arguing: (1) he did not receive credit for all time served in
connection with his offense, and (2) his counsel was ineffective in relying on the
wrong portion of the Iowa Code in arguing for Peel to receive credit for time
served in Texas.
II. Credit for Time Incarcerated in Texas While Receiving Credit on a
Texas Sentence
“[A]n inmate may receive credit upon the inmate’s sentence while
incarcerated in an institution or jail of another jurisdiction during any period of
time the person is receiving credit upon a sentence of that other jurisdiction.”
2000 Iowa Acts ch. 1204, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 903A.5 (2001)). This
statute gives the district court the discretion to give Peel credit for time served in
Texas. Thompson v. City of Des Moines, 564 N.W.2d 839, 845 (Iowa 1997)
4
(noting that “may” is discretionary, not directory like “shall” or “must”). We will not
reverse the district court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion.
State v.
Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1998).
We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award
credit to Peel for time he was incarcerated in Texas and receiving credit upon a
Texas sentence. When Peel was given the opportunity to argue on his behalf at
sentencing, he expressed little acceptance of, or remorse for, his actions. He
stated that he “[hadn’t] ever done anything.” He further asserted that if he were
forced to spend more time in an institution, “it would probably mess [him] up.”
Further, Peel’s extensive and consistent criminal background contradicts his
claim of rehabilitation. Peel was on probation for charges in Texas when he was
arrested on the robbery charges in this case. After being released on bail in this
case, Peel returned to Texas where he was arrested and imprisoned twice. The
district court properly exercised its discretion in declining to credit Peel for time
served in Texas for which he was receiving credit upon a Texas sentence.
III. Credit for Presentence Time Served in Texas
Though Peel is not entitled to credit for time served while receiving credit
on a Texas sentence, he is entitled to mandatory credit for presentence time
served in Texas.
“[I]f an inmate was confined to a county jail or other correctional . . .
facility at any time prior to sentencing . . . because of failure to
furnish bail . . . the inmate shall be given credit for the days already
served upon the term of the sentence.”
Iowa Code § 903A.5 (1999).
5
This court recently considered a similar argument in Powell v. State, 766
N.W.2d 259 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008). In Powell, this court determined a defendant
is entitled to credit for presentence incarceration because of failure to furnish bail.
Id. at 263. Credit begins on the date the arrest warrant was issued and bond
was set in the charging county.
Id.
Therefore, Peel is entitled to credit for
presentence time served in Texas beginning on the date he was in custody after
the arrest warrant was issued and ending on the date Peel began serving a
Texas sentence.
The record is unclear as to the dates when Peel was incarcerated presentence and post-sentence in Texas. We therefore remand to the district court
for further proceedings to determine the amount of time Peel was incarcerated
presentence in Texas and under the Iowa warrant. Peel shall receive credit for
this time on his Iowa sentence. We affirm the district court’s decision not to
award Peel credit for time served in Texas during which he was receiving credit
upon a Texas sentence.
Because we find Peel is entitled to credit for presentence confinement
pursuant to the first unnumbered paragraph of 903A.5, we decline to address his
argument of ineffective assistance of counsel.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
